Will Schryver's Benefactor

[_Buffalo]

<sigh>

It's sweet that you keep aping Peterson like this.

[_Runtu]

So, Will, while I really don't like your online persona much at all, except on occasion when you manage to share some genuine nuggets of worthwhile material, I thank you for your efforts in studying the Book of Abraham. I concur with others when I say that Greg Smith's comment about Mount Doom, etc., was silly. But so too are efforts to dismiss you as a complete moron with nothing to add to the conversation. At the very least people should be able to admit that you sparked a lot of discussion.

I completely agree with your post, Kish. Will has changed the discussion and stirred new interest in the KEP, both of which are good things. I wish he could do so without behaving the way he does, but he is who he is. But he is definitely not a moron and has put a ton of effort into educating himself about the KEP in ways I will never do. I'm still waiting to see his published material, which I hope will answer the questions I have had since I first heard Will's presentation, but I likewise commend him for his efforts.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Where is KG when you need him?

[_Will Schryver]

Runtu:

Will has changed the discussion and stirred new interest in the KEP, both of which are good things. I wish he could do so without behaving the way he does, but he is who he is.

Have I ever mentioned how much I really do appreciate your style?

At any rate, I am who I am—I cannot deny. I find it a mighty challenge to live up to the minimum standards of base humanity and my ever slightly higher personal expectations. How could I ever hope to attain unto the lofty standards of “behaving” that constitute the norm here in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park©?

But he is definitely not a moron and has put a ton of effort into educating himself about the KEP in ways I will never do.

I assure you, it’s all bombast and bluster; smoke and mirrors; lying for the Lord and cold-blooded pedestrian mendacity.

Ask anyone.

I'm still waiting to see his published material …

People have waited a quarter century for Metcalfe, who has long promised but never delivered even a single line of KEP analysis. People waited 6 years while Brian Hauglid prepared his mildly annotated transcription of the Abraham manuscripts. I have been in possession of the high-res scans of the documents for a little over one year now. I’m inclined to think it reasonable for me to take at least a year or two to more formally articulate what already constitutes the single largest body of substantive analysis of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers put forth in the almost half century since they and the Joseph Smith Papyri burst into the public consciousness (an admittedly dubious distinction, perhaps, considering the virtual vacuum of analysis that preceded my FAIR conference presentation).

But then, my standards are not your standards; my ways not your ways.

… which I hope will answer the questions I have had since I first heard Will's presentation …

Some miracles are probably out of reach …

[_Kevin Graham]

You know, I am not a huge fan of Will Schryver, to put it mildly, and I have no idea what actually transpired to bring about the present state of affairs in Book of Abraham apologetics, in which Will appears to be the most prominent of the defenders of a more traditional approach to the problem (granting, of course, that his proposed solution is not by any means "old hat"). My guess would be that apologists were excited to see someone attempt something with the KEP that was positive, helpful, and explanatory beyond the usual shoulder shrugging and "scribes did it" claims.

You know, when Will first spoke, I congratulated him and opined that he had indeed changed the conversation on the topic. Now, I doubt a number of his claims, but I do think he deserves credit for his accomplishment. And it is a real accomplishment to bring the attention of others to a topic, especially one as obscure as the KEP. And not only did he bring our attention to it, but he made some interesting, and ultimately indisputable observations (like the appearance of Masonic cypher in the document). Whether his larger thesis bears out remains to be seen, and while I rather doubt it, I don't think this is really reason to ridicule all of Will's efforts with the Book of Abraham.

Scholarship often proceeds by small steps. When someone sheds new light on a topic, no matter its size, they have done interested scholars a service. Will has done that. I think he deserves at least that much credit and respect for his achievement, not matter what else he might do to piss us off or behave poorly.

The problem with both sides of this debate on the Book of Abraham as it unfolds in apologetic and critical circles is that we are really ultimately more interested in justifying ourselves than understanding the topic, or, you might say, we want to understand the topic with a certain agenda commanding our view. Now, while much can be accomplished by looking at the topic from all angles, it is kind of silly when people on both sides make grandiose claims, final dismissals, and the like. Maybe it serves a purpose, but I am not sure right now what that is.

So, Will, while I really don't like your online persona much at all, except on occasion when you manage to share some genuine nuggets of worthwhile material, I thank you for your efforts in studying the Book of Abraham. I concur with others when I say that Greg Smith's comment about Mount Doom, etc., was silly. But so too are efforts to dismiss you as a complete moron with nothing to add to the conversation. At the very least people should be able to admit that you sparked a lot of discussion.

As for the notion that there is something conspiratorial in all of this. It strikes me that the same set of facts can be seen as either conspiratorial or mundane, especially when the topic itself is fairly innocuous. The KEP are just far enough removed from the Book of Abraham to protect the Book of Abraham from just about any negative hypothesis that would seek to discredit the Book of Abraham as a book of scripture. This is why it did little harm to allow Will Schryver to see them, and had anyone with a decent proposal approached Marlin K. Jensen, I believe he is the kind of guy who is reasonable enough to let them examine them.

For critics there is enough in the Book of Abraham and the facsimiles to demonstrate decisively that this is a 19th century work and that Joseph Smith did not have the foggiest clue what he was doing when he "translated" the papyri, at least in terms of a real-world linguistic rendering of Egyptian into English. But believers will always find room to believe, if they want to believe. Nibley once said that evidence of Smith on trial for glass looking would be devastating. Believers weathered that. Will has shown that believers can weather the KEP, so long as they place their faith in the notion that the Book of Abraham came through revelation.

I rather think that there is indeed no single thing in the world that will necessarily deter or diminish the faith of a person who truly wants to believe. The argument is always over whether there is good enough reason for them to do that. For Mormons the answer to that question is ultimately in the witness of the Spirit. A critic need only say that one's feelings are no basis for confidence in certain facts. Beyond that, I do not know what the argument is. It certainly isn't a historical one.

You admit giving him too much credit in the beginning and I think you're doing it again right now. Most of what Will relayed in his presentation was based on materials and information he borrowed from Chris Smith and Sam Brown. The observations you attribute to Will were already observed by true scholars. All Will did was take from it what he thought he could use to spin an apologetic, and hype it up via the Mormon tabloids.

A while back Andrew Cook showed that Will only came across the Phelps letter because he and Chris Smith were discussing it on the forum. Chris also brought it up in his paper, which Will admittedly read just prior to formulating his argument using that letter. But nowhere does he acknowledge their work, which clearly influenced Will's arguments. For this reason, it is easy to assume Will just had a stroke of genius and saw what no one else saw, particularly masonic cipher symbols, etc. The fact is, we already knew this stuff. But Will had to omit pertinent material they already discussed in order to sell his argument to his apologetic cronies. If he should be given credit for anything, it is his deceptive techniques, as usual.

[_Kishkumen]

You admit giving him too much credit in the beginning and I think you're doing it again right now. Most of what Will relayed in his presentation was based on materials and information he borrowed from Chris Smith and Sam Brown. The observations you attribute to Will were already observed by true scholars. All Will did was take from it what he thought he could use to spin an apologetic, and hype it up via the Mormon tabloids.

A while back Andrew Cook showed that Will only came across the Phelps letter because he and Chris Smith were discussing it on the forum. Chris also brought it up in his paper, which Will admittedly read just prior to formulating his argument using that letter. But nowhere does he acknowledge their work, which clearly influenced Will's arguments. For this reason, it is easy to assume Will just had a stroke of genius and saw what no one else saw, particularly masonic cipher symbols, etc. The fact is, we already knew this stuff. But Will had to omit pertinent material they already discussed in order to sell his argument to his apologetic cronies. If he should be given credit for anything, it is his deceptive techniques, as usual.

That could be, Kevin. I was aware of the Phelps letter some time ago thanks to Chris too. I don't think you should worry too much about me thanking Will because I feel he has done something so earth-shattering. Rather, I believe that the very act of getting a conversation going can be a service. If he borrowed ideas from others, and has made no original contribution that will make a difference in the end, I still believe that he will have provoked many conversations that might not have taken place otherwise. Maybe he put things before an LDS audience that they might have been more resistant too if put in a different way or shared in a different context. I am in favor of more discussion.

[_wenglund]

You admit giving him too much credit in the beginning and I think you're doing it again right now. Most of what Will relayed in his presentation was based on materials and information he borrowed from Chris Smith and Sam Brown. The observations you attribute to Will were already observed by true scholars. All Will did was take from it what he thought he could use to spin an apologetic, and hype it up via the Mormon tabloids.

...this, ironically, from a guy who has been posing as a Book of Abraham expert for nearly half a decade, without givng proper attribution to the real source for his oft banal and sour musings--i.e. Michael Marquardt.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kishkumen]

...this, ironically, from a guy who has been posing as a Book of Abraham expert for nearly half a decade, without givng proper attribution to the real source for his oft banal and sour musings--i.e. Michael Marquardt.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Are you angry at Kevin too, Wade? Don't be shy. Let it all out.

[_wenglund]

[quote="Kishkumen]Are you angry at Kevin too, Wade? Don't be shy. Let it all out.[/quote]

In your haste to project, you have evidently confused anger with the pleasure of exposing flaming hypocrisy.

Perhaps, though, in your narrow and inverted world view there is no difference. Up is down, and down is up. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kishkumen]

In your haste to project, you have evidently confused anger with the pleasure of exposing flaming hypocrisy.

Perhaps, though, in your narrow and inverted world view there is no difference. Up is down, and down is up. LOL

Yeah, well, I hadn't noticed that Kevin was shy about crediting others for their ideas, as much as he has talked about Brent Metcalfe. But maybe your perceptions are accurate, in some dimension at least.